Anil Kumar vs The Sub Divisional Magistrate on 19 January, 2011

[Cites 12, Cited by 0]

Kerala High Court

Anil Kumar vs The Sub Divisional Magistrate on 19 January, 2011

Bench: Thomas P.Joseph

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl.MC.No. 5033 of 2010()


1. ANIL KUMAR, S/O. DAYANANDAN,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE,
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,

3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.RASHEED C.NOORANAD

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOMAS P.JOSEPH

 Dated :19/01/2011

 O R D E R
                            THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J.
                           --------------------------------------
                            Crl.M.C. No.5033 of 2010
                           --------------------------------------
                   Dated this the 19th day of January, 2011.

                                        ORDER

Petitioner is accused in Crime No.190 of 2010 of Vallikunnam Police Station under Section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, "the Code") and submitted before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Chengannur. Police registered Crime No.403 of 2009 against petitioner under Sections 452, 324, 294

(b) of the Indian Penal Code (for short, "the IPC"). Later police also registered Crime No.80 of 2010 under Sections 452, 323, 324, 341, 506(i) and 294 (b) of the IPC. Following that, police registered Crime No.190 of 2010 as above stated and submitted the FIR before the Sub Divisional Magistrate for initiating action under Section 107 of the Code. Learned counsel submits that the dispute is between petitioner and his neighbour who is working in the Asianet regarding existence and use of a pathway. On the influence of petitioner's neighbour the police registered the above said cases. It is submitted by learned counsel that petitioner sustained injuries at the hands of his neighbour and inspite of a complaint given no action was taken against the neighbour for causing hurt. It is also submitted that in the present case no question of breach of public tranquility or peace is involved and hence action under Section 107 of the Code is unwarranted. Learned Public Prosecutor submits that the cases having been Crl.M.C.No.5033 of 2010 2 registered against petitioner for offences above stated and since there was breach of peace which affected public tranquility, action was taken under Section 107 of the Code.

2. Now, only a report is before the Sub Divisional Magistrate. It is for the Sub Divisional Magistrate to initiate action as provided under the Code. There are sufficient safeguards in the Code which provides for an enquiry before final order is passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate if at all the Sub Divisional Magistrate thinks it necessary to proceed in the matter. At this stage I do not consider it necessary to interfere.

Resultantly this petition is closed leaving it open to the petitioner to take appropriate defences before the Sub Divisional Magistrate including that the proceedings could not lie under Section 107 on the contentions raised in this proceeding.

THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge.

cks

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Kerala High Court